We know that the Allies lost about ~18-20,000 on the western front and twice to three times that number on the Eastern front. No mater what numbers you use, they are always in some variation of those ratios, we got our butts kicked.

...
I have done this in the past and have no ambition to do it again. I only made the request as a way to get you, collectively, to take a look at the rough numbers in relation to the rest.

Click to expand...

So you were/are trolling?

As a continuation of the on going argument, I would state that between 80 and 93% of all aircraft downed did not know they were under attack until the bullets started impacting the plane. Therefore, if one plane is significantly harder to see because of it's small size, then it will be more effective in combat, regardless of most of it's other traits!

Click to expand...

The first fact doesn't necessarily support your conclusion. If a WWII fighter plane was in range to shoot down another then it was in range to be seen. The fact that it wasn't indicates that the attention of the pilot was elsewhere. There's also the question of whether or not the Me-109 was significantly harder to see.
Let's take a quick look at say the Spitfire and the Me 109.
From the side the critical dimension for the Spitfire is 9.6 and the Me-109 9.3. Not much of a difference.

I believed like many of you, that many planes were better than others for a variety of reasons, but when you get you're very competitive butt handed to you again and again, you either learn the facts, or get disheartened and quit. I am not a quitter. It was at this point that I finally learned what's what and who is who.

Click to expand...

That was almost totally incoherent except of the part where you told me what I believed.

... The larger the population, the more likely the statistics are accurate.

Click to expand...

Not so. The accuracy of the statistics depends on how you obtain the sample and the sample size as well as the population size. If you have a sample of 12 out of a population of 10,000 you probably don't have a very accurate sample. If it's from a population of 12 you have a perfect sample.

If you want the largest population, then the only valid answer is to count all of WW-II!

Click to expand...

Again not so. Depending on what you are looking at looking at the whole war may not be appropriate. If for instance you are comparing two planes one of which flew the entire war and one only in 44 and 45 then looking at the whole war for one is not appropriate.

While you are absolutely correct that Victory claims and actual numbers might be way off, the resulting numbers are just so huge as to make any other conclusion a fantasy.

Click to expand...

That indicates that you don't understand statistics of the topic at hand.

.... The simplest answer is that we provided them with the so called "Target Rich Environment" were they could easily run up the numbers, and we had to find our targets the hard way.

In terms of being difficult to see...the opposite may also be true, in terms of actually being able to see...the 109 had possibly the worst vision of all aircraft due to the cage with thick spars...and we are really talking about attacks from the rear in terms of not being seen...so any aircraft is difficult to see from the rear...

Whoose formula is that? Head on it's essentially fuselage height by fuselage width. From the top or the bottom there's the question of whether it's presented area or critical dimension (and exactly how to define the latter). From the Sides it would be the fuselage height x the length. In any case those planes are all going to have numbers so close together that there would be no practical difference. Indeed lighting conditions, sky conditions, and camouflage would probably be more important.

Click to expand...

I like it. Good demonstration of critical thinking skills. All good points, but the formulae must be readily adaptable to widely disseminated open source material. The dimensions and procedures you list would be superior to the plan I posted, but worthless in real life as they would require either detailed access of blue prints and or dimensioned mechanical plans. So given those criteria, how would you combine the gross dimensions from many mass market books and a (as in Single!) simple formulae to determine the "To Spot #" for a simple game, or a more sophisticated simulation to be sold to the DoD that addresses ALL of the factors you mentioned above???

Planes are not related to planes...Who knew?First by date, then by type, then by tech. There is a world of difference between early and later planes of the same generation, all bringing with them a new set of problems that take a new set of answers to solve. The weight, wing loading and engine type all have a great deal to do with the accident rate. The faster the stall speed, the more accidents they had/have/will have!
Not sure what you are going on about...The F3F was about twice as heavy as the F4F, the F6F && F4U were about twice as heavy as the F4F, the early jets were about twice as heavy as the F6F & F4U. The F3F was about HALF the weight of the F4F and had two wings for half the loading and was a very easy plane to land, relatively speaking. The F4F was about half the weight of the F4U and F6F, which were all monoplanes and had a much lower sink rate and stall speed, so was much easier to land than the later types, which were themselves half the weight of early jets, etc...
The accident rate had more to do with the immature jet technologies than the weight of the aircraft.

Click to expand...

Not at all! While the immaturity of the early jets did cause a few accidents by failure, the largest single cause of accidents was landing speed and sink rates. The faster they went, the more they crashed. No other source of causality is even close to sink rate and speed on the list of things gone wrong.

So you were/are trolling?Not at all! Because of the refusal to take what seems like a no brainer at face value, I am forced to seek alternative means of teaching. Somebody said the numbers of all of a list of planes would be similar, but WO doing it, you can not know for sure.
The first fact doesn't necessarily support your conclusion. If a WWII fighter plane was in range to shoot down another then it was in range to be seen. This is a silly argument, not related to the argument. The fact that it wasn't indicates that the attention of the pilot was elsewhere. Again, a misguided argument. The point of this exercise is to show that the pilot had to have his entire attention focused on one of twelve directions to either see the target, or his killer, before he is in range! There's also the question of whether or not the Me-109 was significantly harder to see.
Let's take a quick look at say the Spitfire and the Me 109.
From the side the critical dimension for the Spitfire is 9.6 and the Me-109 9.3. Not much of a difference.Well, yes it was! Length, times height would lead one to think the Spit was about 50% easier to see at any given distance! Then there is the rest of the problem, wing area / aspect ratio, the Spit being low aspect ratio with a big wing. The 109 was about twice as hard to spot as the Spitfire, all things considered. Which this simple fraction of the problem does not take into account.
That was almost totally incoherent except of the part where you told me what I believed.Taken out of context.

Not so. The accuracy of the statistics depends on how you obtain the sample and the sample size as well as the population size. If you have a sample of 12 out of a population of 10,000 you probably don't have a very accurate sample. If it's from a population of 12 you have a perfect sample.My point exactly! If you take the entire population, then it IS a perfect sample!
Again not so. Depending on what you are looking at looking at the whole war may not be appropriate. If for instance you are comparing two planes one of which flew the entire war and one only in 44 and 45 then looking at the whole war for one is not appropriate.Again, not true. If looking at '44 & '45 considers the entire population of that planes experiences, then it is valid! Think of it this way instead; Because near the end of the war, German pilots and planes were greatly disadvantaged by lake of training and fuel, it would not be rational to consider K/L ratios of allied planes that had better K/L Ratios because of it.
That indicates that you don't understand statistics of the topic at hand.Why would you think that? See above.
Which suggest your previous claims are wrong doesn't it?Not at all! If one brand of plane shot down so many more EA than all other brands combined, it must state something significant!
I find that extremely presumptuous. Do you have anything to back it up?

Click to expand...

Why? Tell me what great plane from the war has done anything like so many amateur built planes in the last few decades. Long-EZ, Voyager, AR-5, Gossamer Albatross, Space-X, Nemesis, Pushy Galore, Tsunami, Miss Ashley-II and Rare Bear, to name just a few.

I like it. Good demonstration of critical thinking skills. All good points, but the formulae must be readily adaptable to widely disseminated open source material. The dimensions and procedures you list would be superior to the plan I posted, but worthless in real life as they would require either detailed access of blue prints and or dimensioned mechanical plans. So given those criteria, how would you combine the gross dimensions from many mass market books and a (as in Single!) simple formulae to determine the "To Spot #" for a simple game, or a more sophisticated simulation to be sold to the DoD that addresses ALL of the factors you mentioned above???

Click to expand...

There's a saying something to the effect of: "For every complex problem there is a simple solution ... that is wrong." . If you are looking at a computer aided, moderated, or executed simulation why not go with a reasonable instead of a simple method to determine spotting. For ground vehicles critical dimension is used as is based on the vehicle dimensions and aspect angle. it would be more complex with planes due to the extra dimension and how to account for the wings which are almost immaterial in some aspects and major contributors in others. Still most single engine WWII fighters were reasonably close to the same size. Close enough that pilot skill, relevant camouflage, weather conditions, and even how tired the pilot was would dominate over plane size as far as spotting goes.

Why? Tell me what great plane from the war has done anything like so many amateur built planes in the last few decades. Long-EZ, Voyager, AR-5, Gossamer Albatross, Space-X, Nemesis, Pushy Galore, Tsunami, Miss Ashley-II and Rare Bear, to name just a few.

Click to expand...

How many of them (the F8F excepted) would hold up to carrier or rough field landings much less combat in WWII. Those are mostly single trick ponies that rely on advances in aeronautics learned during and since the war, as well as modern tools, more than the skill of the designers.

RareBear, indeed, a modified F8F Bearcat. And for those who wish to pic nits, the F8Fs of VF-19 under LCDR Joe Smith were at NAS Kaneohe ready to deploy when the war in the Pacific ended, so, yes, the F8F was a WWII era aircraft. And a not surprising, considering its Grumman lineage, very capable craft. For example:

November 22, 1946 . . . Cleveland Air Show . . . Operation Pogostick . . . two F8F-1 from TacTest at the NAS Patuxent NATC are prepared for climbs to 10000 feet. Both aircraft have the WEP safety interlock bypassed allowing WEP with wheels down, something standard configuration does not allow. Both aircraft are otherwise standard, armed, but no ammo, with about 50% fuel. Each is equipped with what was called a “theater” installed behind the pilot’s seat. This was a small instrument board, about one-foot square, that had as it’s most important feature a movie camera that recorded time, altitude, and various goings on in the cockpit. The camera was actuated thusly: the pilot taxied the airplane to his starting point and flipped a switch to activate the camera. At that point, when the pilot releases his brakes, another switch is automatically thrown and the camera starts recording events.

In this particular instance, the cameras were calibrated by National Aeronautics Association for the climb attempts. By reviewing the film it became relatively academic to determine the time take to reach 10000 feet or 3000 meters, which ever you wanted to look at.

First to go was LCDR Bill Leonard, Projects Director at TacTest, from a dead stop to 10K feet in 100.0 seconds, including a 150 foot take off run. LCDR Butch Davenport, F8F Projects Officer at TacTest, came along about 30 minutes later and set the next new record of 97.8 seconds, including a 115 foot take off run. Leonard's take off was into an estimated 30 knot head wind, by the time Davenport took off the head wind was over 40 knots. This higher wind speed helped to reduce Davenport’s time on the ground. I have never seen Davenport’s pilot’s log book, but I have Leonard’s in my possession. It shows his run and earlier practice runs made at TacTest in preparation.

It took a jet to beat Davenport's climb mark.

Rapid climb to altitude was the F8F's bread and butter. The plane was to have been one of the solutions to the kamikaze problem ... rapid climbs capability, firepower, speed, and more (better) maneuverability than the F6F or F4U.

Would LCDR Butch Davenport be the former Engineering Officer of VF-17 who - working with Vought Tech Reps - was instrumental in solving many of the F4U's carrier issues that our esteemed military analyst attributed to the British?

Yup, that was Merl William ("Butch") Davenport's fine hand there, too. He had, pre-war, a degree in aeronautical engineering. Did okay as a fighter pilot as well, 6.25 victories while in VF-17 in the Solomons, sharing a G4M with the rest of his division, ENS Robert Ray Hogan, LTJG Robert Hal Jackson, and LT Walter John Schub; and six A6Ms all by himself.

Tsunami had an brief undistinguished career, not unlike several mediocre fighters from WW2.

Basically, the aircraft you have mentioned are x-craft...Like the XP-47J that achieved 505MPH in level flight.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Why even mention it?

Click to expand...

wELL NO, rARE BEAR IS NOT A GREAT PLANE FROM ww-ii, IT IS A HAND BUILT DBOTBABTDCLM! plane with so many changes from the original that it scarcely resembles it any more. It does not even use the original engine any more. If you doubt this, just ask one of the crew.
You are right, it was undistinguished, except for the fact that it was an original design that beat all speeds by WW-II planes including the XP-47J at it's altitude. The AR-5 was an X craft? Nemesis was an X craft? Voyager? Long EZ?? These are all examples of amateur designed and built planes.

There's a saying something to the effect of: "For every complex problem there is a simple solution ... that is wrong." . If you are looking at a computer aided, moderated, or executed simulation why not go with a reasonable instead of a simple method to determine spotting. For ground vehicles critical dimension is used as is based on the vehicle dimensions and aspect angle. it would be more complex with planes due to the extra dimension and how to account for the wings which are almost immaterial in some aspects and major contributors in others. Still most single engine WWII fighters were reasonably close to the same size. Close enough that pilot skill, relevant camouflage, weather conditions, and even how tired the pilot was would dominate over plane size as far as spotting goes.

Click to expand...

Not really! Size is different enough that while most WW-II planes were reasonably close in out side dimensions, but because of the huge differences in AR can be seen at very different ranges. Compute the scores using my formulae for the 109 and Spitfire to see what I mean.

Would LCDR Butch Davenport be the former Engineering Officer of VF-17 who - working with Vought Tech Reps - was instrumental in solving many of the F4U's carrier issues that our esteemed military analyst attributed to the British?

Not really! Size is different enough that while most WW-II planes were reasonably close in out side dimensions, but because of the huge differences in AR can be seen at very different ranges. Compute the scores using my formulae for the 109 and Spitfire to see what I mean.

Click to expand...

I calculated the critical dimension (side view) and there was less than a 10% difference. I didn't have the width of the fuselage so couldn't calculate that one but since their engines are about same width we can use that as an estimation and the result is a critical dimension for the Me-109 about 1/3 less than that of the Spitfire. Not sure if the height number include the landing gear though. Do PLS note that the Yak-3 is smaller in all dimensions except possibly width as it's engine is 1cm wider than that of the Me-10 so it's going to come out looking better no matter which formula you use. It also featured the center mounted weaponry you are so fond of. Note the critical dimension of the Yak-1 is about 1% larger from the front and 5% smaller from the side, given it's other dimensions it's also going to be smaller using your formula and from the top or bottom using surface area or the square root there of.

You have once again contradicted yourself even from that somewhat less than accurate cut-paste job you did on F4Us. It was Butch Davenport who worked out the need for spoiler to remedy the low speed stall problem, determining optimal size, shape, and placement. All F4Us sported the spoiler he designed. So the plane was changed. He also worked with the Vought reps on the oleo pressure problem (that inaccurately described in your Wiki cut-paste) which eliminated that portion of the bounce not caused by simple poor technique. So, still another change to the aircraft.

You need to read up on Naval Aviation, its aircraft, development of same, and personages before you start pontificating; the lack of breadth whenever you write of F4Fs, F6Fs, F4Us, and F8Fs is painfully obvious.

Media

Resources

Members

About US

Welcome to WWII Forums! You are at a gateway to WWII discussion, research, exploration, & analysis. We directly support the repository at WW2.ORG, and several other worthwhile projects that add to the historical record. Join in if you dare!